The mobile platform space is extremely fluid, and I do not think the open source community can muster the forces necessary to compete. Open source never seems to be the innovator. Instead, it seems to disrupt pricing power for established technologies.

Game over for worldwide dominance. But server dominance is nothing to sneeze at.

Comments

Semantics being good sport and all, I feel obliged to dispute Texaswriter's assertion that Android is a "distribution of linux". Android is an operating system that uses the Linux kernel, and is currently, for good or bad, referred to as a Linux operating system. Unlike most operating systems that use the Linux kernel, Android is not a free software distribution. Free software distributions are usually released under one of the GNU GPL variants.

The majority of "Linux operating systems" are also considered GNU/Linux operating systems, which is to say the majority of core applications and libraries are released under some GNU GPL or GNU LGPL license. Android is an "Android/Linux" operating system if you like, and (unless things have changed) Mac OS is really Mac/BSD OS.

Google no longer makes the source code for the Android OS freely available, and though the corporation's modifications to many of the underlying free software programs have been shared with the free software community, this is only because they are obliged to under the applications' free software license. Many of the core Android OS applications are licensed in such a way that any person or corporation who obtains the software source code can distribute modified versions of the software without any obligation to release the source code for those modifications. That is, anyone is able to retain the "intellectual property" incorporated in the modifications they have made, and by "intellectual property", I mean money.

Software licences which enable people to withhold source code modifications have enabled this whole "Open Source" fiasco. Any software license that provides a mechanism to make a free program or library non-free, such as the BSD family of licenses, is axiomatically not a free software license. You can think of these as "Screw you, and thanks for the source" licenses.

People often naively suggest that Open Source software saved free software by being more palatable to business, and gee, look at all the "Open Source" software the generous corporations have made for us. Isn't it peachy! But consider for a moment a world in which all software is free software, where every person in the world who writes software shared their work with everybody else, whether they are writing software to entertain people, or to make business easier or more efficient, or whatever. Imagine a world awash with source code and knowledge, where no-one would never dream to break the Golden Rule: share the source as you would like it shared with you.

Paul, it is a bit irritating when people use technicalities that have no bearing on reality or semantics that also do nothing to reflect reality or logic. I occasionally see a valid use of semantics when there is a very large difference in how somebody is perceiving a sentence, but the difference: a) has to be signficant b) has to relate importantly to the subject.

So, for example, there is nothing such as one "Linux" operating system. As you said, there is the Linux kernel and various Linux distributions that USE or are based on the Linux kernel. This means what it means. The operating systems that are Linux distributions use or are based on the Linux kernel.

Moreover, Linux distributions do NOT need to be open source. Linux distributions do not have to be free. This is a logical fallacy to say they have to be. Most are, but there are some that include proprietary elements (or that charge money for). There are some that are non-free and open source.

We can also say that Android IS an operating system based on the Linux kernel. In that, I would call it just as much a Linux operating in that sense. It's interface for applications is a Dalvik Java VM, but one would suppose that if you could get outside of that, with the required libraries ported, you could run any Linux program. But then it wouldn't really be any difference than running any "standard" Linux distribution.

So, in short, don't use semantics to put forth an argument that doesn't otherwise exist unless the definitions of words are being abused. In this case, I don't think there is clear enough definitions for what "Linux" is, since any operating system distributing/based on the Linux kernel is typically called Linux or a Linux Distribution. Debian GNU/Linux is an example. Android is definitely unique in the world of Linux operating systems, but no more different than the comparison of linux server vs linux gui... different interfaces for running software in both cases.

Here is a table of the various operating systems relevant and what kind of programs run on them (or where the programs run from, i.e. the required platform)

Just a further comment, Google is releasing the source code to Android in the near future. It will be open source.

Also, Android would run Linux applications if you got from "under" the Dalvik Java VM and had the appropriate libraries ported (very, highly likely in Linux for most libraries to be high cross-platform/cross-architecture).

--8<----8<----8<--....
Paul, it is a bit irritating when people use technicalities that have no bearing on reality or semantics that also do nothing to reflect reality or logic. I occasionally see a valid use of semantics when there is a very large difference in how somebody is perceiving a sentence, but the difference: a) has to be signficant b) has to relate importantly to the subject.
--8<----8<----8<--....

Such as when you say "Android is not a Linux operating system. It is a distribution of Linux"? Is that like, Vista is a "distribution of Windows"?

--8<----8<----8<--....
So, for example, there is nothing such as one "Linux" operating system. As you said, there is the Linux kernel and various Linux distributions that USE or are based on the Linux kernel. This means what it means. The operating systems that are Linux distributions use or are based on the Linux kernel.
--8<----8<----8<--....

This is writing dude, try to make actual points.

--8<----8<----8<--....
Moreover, Linux distributions do NOT need to be open source. Linux distributions do not have to be free. This is a logical fallacy to say they have to be. Most are, but there are some that include proprietary elements (or that charge money for). There are some that are non-free and open source.
--8<----8<----8<--....

Your straw man is small and non-threatening.

--8<----8<----8<--....
We can also say that Android IS an operating system based on the Linux kernel. In that, I would call it just as much a Linux operating in that sense. It's interface for applications is a Dalvik Java VM, but one would suppose that if you could get outside of that, with the required libraries ported, you could run any Linux program. But then it wouldn't really be any difference than running any "standard" Linux distribution.
--8<----8<----8<--....

I think it would be more correct to say that Android is an operating system WITH a Linux kernel. Perhaps one day it will be an operating system with a BSD kernel! Linux will truly be dead then!

--8<----8<----8<--....
So, in short, don't use semantics to put forth an argument that doesn't otherwise exist unless the definitions of words are being abused. In this case, I don't think there is clear enough definitions for what "Linux" is, since any operating system distributing/based on the Linux kernel is typically called Linux or a Linux Distribution. Debian GNU/Linux is an example. Android is definitely unique in the world of Linux operating systems, but no more different than the comparison of linux server vs linux gui... different interfaces for running software in both cases.
--8<----8<----8<--....

Thank you for your advice. I can only suggest in return that you and Mr Gualtieri should get together and attend a course on putting arguments to words, for neither of you seem to be very proficient at it. You appear to be taking my previous reply to you very personally, which isn't very constructive. It's fun for me, but I feel bad for you.

--8<----8<----8<--....
Here is a table of the various operating systems relevant and what kind of programs run on them (or where the programs run from, i.e. the required platform)

Just a further comment, Google is releasing the source code to Android in the near future. It will be open source.

Also, Android would run Linux applications if you got from "under" the Dalvik Java VM and had the appropriate libraries ported (very, highly likely in Linux for most libraries to be high cross-platform/cross-architecture).
--8<----8<----8<--....

To be frank I've got no idea what you're trying to say here so I'll leave it alone.

Have a cup of tea, commune with nature, or find some other way to relax. We're all on the same side here (apart from the silly Mr Gualtieri) so please, nice, deep breaths.

Don't take me saying "using semantics alone" as a personal attack on you. AND THEREFORE you may also forgo personal attacks.

Your original reply had some points, but they were based on responding to my arguments from a purely semantic point of view, which says nothing of actually meaning anything.

Your second reply is pure trolling. This is not meant to be an ad hominem. I attack behavior, not people. Needless to say, the only response I care to muster is these:

My original comment had these intents:

1. Correct the blog poster's (aka OP) facts
2. Correct the incorrect fact that Android, simply by having a Dalvik Java VM for the application layer, is not a LInux distribution or at least Linux-like.
3. The above have the effect of showing the blog post for the logical fallacy it is. In fact it is much worse, the original post by the blog poster is PURE TROLLING. Even worse that the original poster includes statistics links to make the perception that his post is somehow grounded in facts.

Android may not be considered Linux, nor does it need to be. It is an operating system with the Linux kernel (however modified), which is the main distinction of an operating system.

To your other logical fallacy about "Windows distribution". Linux distributions exist because things are open source. People are free to "spin" their own distributions, with whatever applications, etc that they wish. That IS in fact why Android is around, because Google is free to use whatever Linux kernel version, modify it as they see fit, and add whatever components they choose. They can also CALL it anything they want, hence Android OS.

A "Windows distribution" would automatically assume that you were able to have distributions of Windows. In fact, Windows DOES have a kernel, and this kernel does undergo change. However, there are NOT distributions or customizations of the operating system beyond what Microsoft allows. So, there are other things I could say about this, but that is key. There are also not "distributions" of Mac OSX

A distribution is like an implementation of the kernel. So, there is exactly ONE Windows distribution of any given kernel (except as MS might share kernels across different operating system offerings). JoeBlow Operating Company does NOT offer their own implentation of the Windows kernel.

So, the term GNU/Linux or Linux distribution represents that you take this kernel and build an operating system around it, and that ANYBODY can do that. It can be any operating system to suit the needs of the end-user.

Oh yeah, if you are going to throw around "logical fallacy bombs", at least know them.

This interesting opening would suggest that the author has some sympathy with Linux. In reality, it is likely more derogatory or unkind in nature.

>It struggled so hard to dominate the world. It was the little open source engine that could, but it didn’t.

There are the Linux distributions that are primarily for individual users (and are intended to be completely free) and those intended for enterprise/businesses.

The non-free variants charge money for the operating system or for service/support. These types of Linux distributions comprise the majority of the server market. If you actually consider the traffic through all the websites (i.e. weight the websites based on site traffic), you see that although the use of Linux/Unix-like servers for hosting is one percentage (~63%), Linux/Unix-like servers account for more of the traffic.

Of the Linux distributions that are for individual users, most cater to their EXISTING user base or the user base of another Linux distribution. Canonical is one that does cater its operating system for mass-appeal.

Obviously it is a goal to be widely accepted, though most distributions are made by and for its users, while also being usable for any person. Combine these usable operating systems with a wide availability of free and open source software, and one can reasonably expect to replace a proprietary system with it. IN FACT, that is the MAIN GOAL of Linux and it has certainly accomplished that --> it is also an ongoing process (continuous improvement and adding more programs)

Be aware that your post has already, at this point, veered into logical fallacy territory by assuming the past tense. Words do bear meaning with respect to reality, and stating something in the past tense suggests that it is already a by-gone thing (like say landing men on the moon).

In fact, nothing of the sort has happened.

>It never even came close to Microsoft Windows on the desktop, with less than 2% share of desktops. The bright spot for Linux is that 60%+ of servers on the Internet run Linux.
But the real end to Linux’s hope for world dominance came when mobile platforms iOS and Android cleaned clocks in the mobile market. Sure, Android is built on top of Linux, but Linux is only one of many piece parts of the Android mobile operating system. It is not Linux.

Once again, you make the logical fallacy of assuming the past tense, therefore assuming a by-gone event that means no ongoing or future process(es). This is entirely fallacious.

In some places in the world it is almost 100% of usage.

You make the logical fallacy about iOS and Android. FIRST OFF, BSD is Unix-like. Secondly, the only reason why Linux was created was because of legal FUD surrounding BSD being based off of proprietary elements. So, Linux and BSD are both Unix-like. Mac OSX and iOS are both Unix-like and BSD-like. So, nobody in the Linux world is threatened by Apple, iOS, or Android. If anything, they would want to support it.

So, this paragraph is completely fallacious.

>The mobile platform space is extremely fluid, and I do not think the open source community can muster the forces necessary to compete. Open source never seems to be the innovator. Instead, it seems to disrupt pricing power for established technologies.

Take a kernel of truth and use it to great destruction. I would agree that the mobile platform is a rapidly evolving arena. How you would use this to say anything about the price of rice in China is beyond me.

BTW, have you ever used KDE. There is actually nothing truly like it. Gnome Shell/Unity both brought a better tablet-style application switcher and application menu before Windows has been able to. Have you ever used Compiz, and then tried to "emulate" that on any other operating system, just to realize it bogs the system down. Have you ever used any of the 1000s of software programs that are a) purpose-built b) community maintained c) continuously improved. Have you ever experienced what it is like to have choice in any and every part of your computing experience, anything from drivers, flash plugins, programming interfaces... I would assume most "Windows users" don't know what choice is and what that would entail for their computing experience.

>Instead, it seems to disrupt pricing power for established technologies.

Linux is competition. Apple's Mac OS X and iOS are competition. BSD is competition. I understand Microsoft has TRIED VERY HARD to prevent that competition. Competition is supposed to provide a number of elements to the market place:

Competition leads to more innovation, better pricing, more availability, more choice, more products, and generally a better fit for their needs.

So, while your statement is enigmatic, I can't say it is fallacious. Still, I understand your arrangement of those words is supposed to appeal to certain elements, therefore purporting a logical fallacy. So, for example, "disrupt pricing power", well, it will disrupt pricing schemes (that's a benefit of competition). This also benefits companies as well, who are purchasing "capital goods" or other products/services. "Established technologies" seems to suggest that Linux isn't an established technology. Linux is based on Unix, a 40 year old operating system. I would call that established.

The overall context is intended to appeal to people who are prone to FUD (fear/uncertainty/doubt). Taken together, this entire paragraph is completely fallacious.

Readers, Thanks for all the feedback. I really wanted to avoid explain the difference between the Linux kernel and Linux distributions. I contend that most people know "Linux" as a brand name operating system regardless of all the distros and the distinction of the kernel. I added the word distribution with a link to Wikipedia definition.

Android OS is a Linux-derived operating system. A Linux distribution is also a Linux-derived operating system.

Android OS, Mac OS X, iOS, any Linux distribution, BSD, Android (a Linux-derived operating system) are all Unix-like. Mac OS X, and iOS are all Unix-like and BSD-like. Android OS and any Linux distribution are all Unix-like and Linux-like.

Every operating system has a kernel. That kernel is the most important feature of an operating system.

I don't know how you justify making a statement about what Android is or is not. There is no point in calling something Linux or not-Linux. But, if you could call something an operating system or like an operating system based on Kernel, "affinity", or relation, one would call Android a Linux operating system.

From the first line of the Wikipedia article you linked:
"A Linux distribution is a member of the family of Unix-like operating systems built on top of the Linux kernel"
Android is the Linux Kernel, with a unix-like operating system on top of it running a Java Virtual Machine. What reasoning do you have to say that Android is not a Linux Distribution.

" I contend that most people know "Linux" as a brand name operating system"
I don't know of anybody that thinks that, and if they did they would be wrong. the "linux brand" only makes a kernel. which other people (canonical, red hat, Google) use to make operating systems. It's like saying Goodyear makes cars even though all they make is tires which other people use to make a car.

I would like to clarify this a bit.. By Linux distribution, it clearly means GNU/Linux based OS. Android which doesn't show any resemblance to any other GNU/Linux distro clearly isn't a GNU/Linux distribution.
For example, you can can run KDE apps (i mean Qt apps) in GNOME (gtk+) desktop and otherwise. However, you can't run Gtk+/Qt apps on Android nor can you run Android apps on GNU/Linux OS.. [I am aware of the simulator]

I am still arguing against the author's views about the Linux's mobile market dominance. Because, if he meant the kernel by "Linux", He must have realised that he is wrong from the other comments and if he meant GNU/Linux (and its derivatives like ubuntu), he should remember that they were made for DESKTOPS when mobile devices never existed. Android/Meego shall have the same role in mobile market as GNU had in Desktop Market.. And I am sure, Android/Meego will dominate the market for the near future.. And kindly remember, it is we users who decide whether or not to buy a windows phone, So Nokia-Microsoft deal is meaningless.

I still disagree. A linux distribution isn't defined by whether or not it can run GTK or Qt apps. This definition would mean that Linux installations without a GUI installed are not "real" linux distributions. From the wikipedia article, something considered a Linux distro does not even necessarily have to be packaged with GNU applications at all. All the definition really is is any complete working system that runs on top of a Linux Kernel which would clearly include android systems.

Usually is the key word there. I'm arguing semantics with this article's author so the use of the word "usually" is important. It is correct, linux distorbutions "usually" contain an x windows system, gnu libraries and lots of gnu utilities, but the main point here is that though it's the most common situation, it is not a requirement to be considered a linux distribution. Also, they didn't miss android. From the same wikipedia article:

"It is more common to find embedded devices sold with Linux as the default manufacturer-supported OS, including the Linksys NSLU2 NAS device, TiVo's line of personal video recorders, and Linux-based cellphones (including Android smartphones),"

It's saying the "defauult manufacturer-supported OS" is Linux. Which would mean that android is in fact a Linux distribution.

Check the list link in my reply. Android doesn't have the libraries required to call it a Linux distro, it is not associated with the GNU/Linux based distros.. But Android uses Linux and Android is Linux!, (it is representing the power of Linux) but not a Linux distribution..

When I was a kid 5-6 years ago (kid in Linux world) I used to participate in such flame wars.
BTW:
"It is more common to find embedded devices sold with Linux as the default manufacturer-supported OS, including the Linksys NSLU2 NAS device, TiVo's line of personal video recorders, and Linux-based cellphones (including Android smartphones), PDAs, and portable music players."
You missed these lines from the updated link you have given.
OH and The first line of the wiki article is, "A Linux distribution is a member of the family of Unix-like operating systems built on top of the Linux kernel". I hope you read what you post next time.

Why do you want people to mock at you even more. Or is it just a publicity stunt.

Let's suppose for a moment that you all are successful in convincing the author that he was wrong. Let's pretend he retracts his statements and apologizes.

Then what? What will happen for you if that occurs?

The issue at hand is of no actual & factual relevance or importance to anyone on earth. The only place this argument holds any weight is in your collective thought-created dream worlds in which defending beliefs offers one feelings of self-importance and significance.

Your physical bodies have no interest in Linux, computers, Mike Gualtieri, or his blog. You are quick to point out Mike's lack of knowledge, yet several commenters have made remarks far more ignorant, not to mention rude and immaterial to the discussion at hand.

>Let's suppose for a moment that you all are successful in convincing the author that he was wrong. Let's pretend he retracts his statements and apologizes.

While you are asking that, you might as well ask what the point of life. IF there was a point to him posting the article, than there is a point for people reading it to respond. Capiche?

>Then what? What will happen for you if that occurs?

What will happen? Well, that would mean he is convinced. And that is what will have happened.

>The issue at hand is of no actual & factual relevance or importance to anyone on earth. The only place this argument holds any weight is in your collective thought-created dream worlds in which defending beliefs offers one feelings of self-importance and significance.

It isn't really a "beliefs" or anything. Actually the arguments against are pretty clear, rational, and logical. Everybody has feelings of self-importance and significance. Are you suggesting they/we shouldn't? I think that is part of being human...

"Thought-created dream"... hrrm!!!!

>Your physical bodies have no interest in Linux, computers, Mike Gualtieri, or his blog. You are quick to point out Mike's lack of knowledge, yet several commenters have made remarks far more ignorant, not to mention rude and immaterial to the discussion at hand.

Really? What are you trying to say... Can you even call this "metaphysical"... You respond to rational, reasonable, and logical arguments with such insubstantive arguments.

>Again, he apologizes.

His entire post is fallacious. His entire post is wrong. He should apologize for it. In the abscence of apologize or retracting, you may certainly expect to get "flack" from people.

>Then?

Life goes on.. want to ponder the meaning of that one too?? Go for it!!!

1. Linux is not an operating system, GNU/LINUX is. Linux alnog with Free GNU tools makes it a Linux operating system. Now real question is Does android comes with these tools like cd, vi, rm etc. The answer is Yes. Does android has Linux kernel, The answer is yes. Can we do almost anything we can do on Linux Os, Yes we can do that on Android. The only new things which sits on top of it is Android framework, which you can assume is just like gtk(gnome), kde. Does this make Android any less linux distribution? Meamo is Fully Linux, Bada can have Linux kernel. I really don't understand from where you even considered that Liniux's Game is Over.

2. "The mobile platform space is extremely fluid, and I do not think the open source community can muster the forces necessary to compete. Open source never seems to be the innovator. Instead, it seems to disrupt pricing power for established technologies.", Are you kidding ??
Yes Mobile platfor is extremely fluid, that is why Android is dominating it, but who knows tommorow WP7 would be dominating. But opensource community can not muster forces necessary to compete, Success Cynogen mod and MIUI rom and several other roms are proof that When we have the code we can make it meaningful.
Innovation, huh Linux itself is innovative, after that I can tell you N number of projects which are innovative yet opensource.
I can only think of a scenario where your project had been severely affacted by some opensource counterpart and you are just blabbering and spitting out your frustration.

Please please go into crux of matter and research before you post a blog post.

Puneet, I appreciate your detailed comment. Even if Android = Linux, I still don't think Linux will dominate on mobile, just as it didn't on desktop. I grant you that Android has a much, much higher penetration than on desktop. Let's say for argument it is 50%. I don't think it will ever get to 98% of mobile devices. Would you agree that Windows dominates desktops?

Before answering your question, I would ask you another question. Does google dominates search engine market?http://www.statowl.com/search_engine_market_share.php 78% is not 98%.
Secondly When a race does not have the same starting line its pointless to see and judge who is winning. Microsoft as we know has long history of crubbing competition by hook or by crook. Before Ubuntu Linux was just for servers and geeks. AND IT DOMINATED IN ITS AREA(super computing and servers). Linux was never created for end user needs. It is just few years ago after canonical created something very easy and beautiful. And Now as we see Ubuntu users(not geeks) are growing. Only fate will decide who will dominate the market. But I am skeptical about Windows's future too. Things are going on cloud, also As we have seen what happend to Nokia long dominated smartphone market is now behaving like a cry baby.
Ooh and I can show you so many anti linux anti open office campaign which were totally misleading and was unfair done by M$. Microsoft already lost on moral grounds. They have money they have the power to keep vendors in their pockets. The so called wrongly projected 2% Linux users you are saying are those who refused to use the windows which came along with their hardware preinstalled.
Can you answer me, one thing.... Given a choice between What to install Windows 7 by paying 199$ or getting Ubuntu 11.10 all for free at the time of buying what you would have chosen?

Let me ask you this: If I said Windows had 38% market share in June, in August it was at 43%, and for the last 3 months, it had reached 56% of all recent acquisitions, would you predict it to 'dominate' the market? If I had said that Windows was at 43% and rising quickly, OS X at 28% and steady, and Linux at 18%, and Amiga OS at 11%, would you say Windows dominated the market? If among recent acquisitions, Windows was at 56%, OS X still at 28%, Linux falling to 9%, and Amiga to 6%, would you say Windows was on the path to domination?

Those numbers are recent figures for mobile OSs, with "Windows" Being Android, OS X being iOS, 'Linux" being Blackberry, and "amiga" being Windows phone. It sure looks to me like open source is dominating the market already, no?

And I state again, you don't get to carry a double standard. "Linux" as a shorthand for any distribution, holds 60% of the server market. Android, which somehow doesn't fall under the same shorthand of "Linux", despite the very article you referred to on Wikipedia defining it as such, doesn't count as Linux in the mobile market?

What everyone is upset about here isn't necessarily the distinction between OS and kernel, but the fact that you use Linux as an umbrella term for all distros in one place, then separate it from the same definition in another place. If you used the term consistently, then all distros are "Linux", and so is Android, and is, in fact, dominating the market right now. My guess is it will continue to do so, and continue to gain. Windows phone 7 may be very nice, it may even be far superior to Android or iOS, and it will still lose. It will lose for the same reason WebOS lost, it was a great system, but was too little, too late.

Microsoft continues to hype phone 7, and mango, and we continue to see stories about how it is going to roar back and take over the world, yet they continue to lose market share. After the release of Mango, the share continued to drop, with recent acquirers only choosing it 6% of the time.

"It is more common to find embedded devices sold with Linux as the default manufacturer-supported OS, including the Linksys NSLU2 NAS device, TiVo's line of personal video recorders, and Linux-based cellphones (including Android smartphones), PDAs, and portable music players."

Linux is everywhere, even Mike Gualtieri probably owns more devices that run linux than all other OS together.
Do you have a digital TV? yes, your digital TV runs linux under the hood.
Do you have a DVD or BluRay player? yes, it also runs linux under the hood.
Do you have a cable or satellite settop box? yes, it runs linux under the hood too.
Do you have a multimedia disc? It also runs linux under the hood.
Do you have a wii? It's OS is a proprietary form of linux.
Do you have a router? it also runs on linux.
Do you have an android phone? Android is linux based.
Do you have an e-book? most are linux based.
Do you have a GPS navigator? yes, you guess it, most are also linux based.

What about cars?
Quote :Thu Oct 27 2011, 15:15 GERMAN CAR MAKER BMW spoke about how it might use Linux for in-car entertainment at Linuxcon Europe in Prague today.
Quote :"Linux gives us the flexibility and technology maturity we require to evolve our In-Vehicle-Infotainment and communications systems to address the expectations of our customers," said Kenichi Murata, a project general manager with Toyota.
Quote :Because drivers typically keep their cars for much longer than they do electronic devices, Cadillac needed to make Cue as flexible as possible for future updates. For that reason, the user interface system for the car synonymous with luxury and expense will be based on Linus Torvalds' legendary free operating system, Linux.

Actually it is hard to think of any segment not dominated by linux other than desktops.

Linux Mint, Fedora, Trisquel, Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu, Lubuntu, Android, WebOS, ChromeOS, Debian, Arch, Mandriva, Mageia, Amazon Kindle Fire OS and on and on and on. Millions of people are using GNU/Linux based operating systems. If they were not dominating somewhere, then no one would be developing for them or using them. FLOSS rules!

http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/31855.html
What is the world's most widely used operating system? It's not Windows, Unix or Linux, but ITRON, a Japanese real-time kernel for small-scale embedded systems. ITRON runs on mobile phones, digital cameras, CD players and countless other electronic devices.

You didn't get it don't you? linux desktops? are you kidding me.. what you see in mobile is the new generation desktop(powered by IOS and android) . are you talking about PC? yes microsoft is dominating in PC era.. but did you count how many android / iphone mobile phones are shipped everyday? did you compare that to PC in terms of how many? how many are browsing the internet using the mobile phone? how many are using apps / productivity /games? isnt the mobile the new desktop? tell me.

I remember guys like you arguing that "UNIX is dead, no matter what, windows nt will dominate the server market within 5 years". That was in 1996. We all know how it turned out right ?
The main difference beetween "analysts" and "techies" is that you have no clue how real world is actually running, and no, the IT word is not a smartphone... nor a workstation.
Oh and BTW, Android runs on top of GNU/Linux, helped by a bunch of opensource tools, this is what we use to call "a distribution".
Please stick to your powerpoint next time.

Mike is an old man who's losing contact with reality. he reads stuff without understanding a word of it. Then he writes articles with a distorted perception of reality. He has no idea what a kernel is, what an OS is and what an application is. It's time his employer finds some pre-retirement job for him where he isn't forced to write about technical stuff way beyond his powers of understanding.

You think that the "Linux" on servers is just a kernel with Apache, MySQL, PHP, or whatever else on top of it? I'm gathering this from your assertion that Linux is fairly prevalent on servers, but not on desktops or mobile.

Do you realize that most of those servers are running a distribution of Linux, such as Redhat, Ubuntu, CentOS, or a homegrown version by the manufacturer? Do you also realize that:

All of these are Linux Distributions because they are stacks built upon the Linux Kernel. Android is the Linux kernel with the packages that Google chooses to implement (Desktop manager, applications, etc). Just like Ubuntu is the Linux Kernel with the packages that Canonical chooses to implement. (And Redhat, Debian, Slackware, etc are the same things).

You are right to an extent though. At least in the Netbook market, Linux did lose out (and probably won't regain it's share). But that's because the netbook manufacturers chose to make a faulty implementation (aka Distribution) for the netbooks. If they had gone with more of a traditional look/feel, things could be different.

I read your bio and it says «Mike has more than 20 years experience in software development and architecture.». And then «Mike earned a B.S. in computer science and management from Worcester Polytechnic Institute»

Really? No.... really? Are you sure you don't remember learning something about a thing called "Operating System architecture"?
I thing someone is going to be fired...

Thanks for the interesting article Ziad. You know I am suspicious of open source projects initiated by behemoth firms like Google that have billions of dollars. That said, even if Android were 100% Linux however you wish to define it, I stand by my analysis that Linux won't dominate the mobile device market. The mobile market is still chaotic. Apple is a force. Google Android is a force. The jury is still out in my mind. I DO NOT think the mobile market will be dominated by one platform like the desktop market in dominated by Microsoft.

That said, even if Android were 100% Linux however you wish to define it, I stand by my analysis that Linux won't dominate the mobile device market. The mobile market is still chaotic. Apple is a force. Google Android is a force.

Make up your mind, first you say you dont trust google, then the market is chaotic and finally google android (linux) is a force... completely lost arent you?

Now a little lesson, might have slipped your employer and your own college:

" I stand by my analysis"

You see, a analysis is based on hard data, you know, numbers, links, hard evidence. Something to show in the article to prove your point or show a TENDENCY. You provided nothing of the kind.

You made a PREDICTION, out of your .. hat... that linux was game over, that MS will succeed and so on... without a single number, link, datasheet, nothing.. just your crystal ball.. And you still want ppl to take you serious just because you are Mike Gualtieri the analyst.

The jury is still out in my mind. I DO NOT think the mobile market will be dominated by one platform like the desktop market in dominated by Microsoft.

To me the only jury would be of your employers and why they pay good money for such an awesome "analyst"...

How much has been paid to you by Microsoft for this poor article?
It seems that you don't have even the basic knowledge about "LINUX". It is a kernel dude not the whole operating system and for today's world this kernel is the core component in almost every thing which a computing world can imagine. And for you "SIR" let me inform you that the Linux project is for human knowledge, it aids to your knowledge and doesn't ask for price. Plz do not take it as a chunk of software but feel it as a part of knowledge given to you.

For everyone trying to claim the writer doesn't know what they're talking about because they use the word "Linux" to refer to the entire, OS, you're making us all look stupid. For more than a decade, the word Linux has been used for the kernel by itself, the kernel+toolchain, and the entire distro.

"Linux is a Unix-like computer operating system assembled under the model of free and open source software development and distribution. The defining component of any Linux system is the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released October 5, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux system distributions may vary in many details of system operation, configuration, and software package selections."

The multiple usage of the term is well-enshrined; much more so than "GNU/Linux" ever will be.

The Linux desktop has always been irrelevant.

First it was too fragmented, too unstable (updates always break something essential), and not capable to run many of the programs that people need.

Now mobile devices are making ALL desktops less relevant.

As infrastructure, linux is great, there's no denying it.

However, while I use linux as my primary desktop, there is no way that I can recommend it for anyone but another developer. The desktop continues to be too buggy in all its incarnations.

As a consumer OS, it's pretty much a rounding error, and the reality is that's never going to change. There's more financial incentive (thanks to the freer licensing of the *BSDs) to derive another desktop OS from FreeBSD than there ever will be from linux.